Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defense Part 1 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - DDP v Majewski (1977); altercation at the pub punched a customer, cut land lord with broken glass and struck a police officer. Defendant had taken drugs and alcohol prior to the incident, he argues due to intoxication he was not aware of his actions thus no mens rea, judge rejected his defense.
        
        Getting drunk is itself reckless and he has been charged with basic intent and thus his plea provided no offense
    - - Example; Hardie (1985), Guy took his girlfriends pre-scribed drug and could not remember parts of what happened afterwards, he set fire to the houses wardrobe. He argues he did not have the mens rea, the appeal was quashed by the judge saying that the case isn't whether he burnt the wardrobe, but whether he was in a mental state to be able to do so. The fact that the defendant was unaware of the effect and taking a legal drug.
- - - - Example
        
        Murder + Loss of control = Manslaughter
- - - - Special VerdictIf successful the verdict will be not guilty due to reasons of insanity (This is based on the criminal procedure act in 1964)
      - The Criminal procedure act was rectified in 1991 to provide outcomes for the mentally insane
        
        Assign to a hospital
        
        Supervision and treatment order
        
        An order for absolute discharge
      - Proof of Insanity requires an internal factor or disease of the mind
  - - - A lower standard of proof applies (a balance of probability
      - The Example
        
        The Murderer aiming for Sir Robert Peel accidentally shot his secretary by accident. Defense proved the defendant was suffering from morbid delusions and was unable to control his actions. Eventually getting a acquittal status
        
        The case was highly controversial leading the house of lords revisiting the rules
        
        The defendant had to prove
        
        he was suffering from a defect of reason
        
        which was caused by a disease of the mind
        
        that he did not know the nature & quality of the act, or
        
        that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
      - Burden of Proof Rests with Defense
        
        Wolmington DDP (1935), The major authority to cite
- - - - A legal reason why should not be charge
- - - - Cases where these apply are...
        
        Insanity
        
        Under the law everyone is seen as sane, and to claim insanity bears burden on the defense. This is because of the ease of proof where the defense is in a Easier position to prove the mental health of the defendant than the prosecutor
        
        Evidential Burden
        
        Not a burden of proof, but a burden to raise evidence to make an issue a live one
        
        Occurs when the defendant raises claims such as automatism, self defense and duress
        
        But defendant does not bear a legal burden and doesn't not have to prove the elements of the relevant defense
- - - - This applies to the time of the trial, not the time of the crime
        
        Criminal act Procedure is the act which mentions the procedure to address the fitness to plea
        
        It has been ammended multiple times, in 1964, 1991, 2004, 2016
        
        Example John M (2003), trial judge identified 6 factors
        
        Decide whether to plead guilty or not
        
        Exercise right to challenge juries
        
        Understand the Charges
        
        Instruct solicitors/ council
        
        Follow course of procedings
        
        Give evidence in his defense
        
        Law commission argues the current system is unfair, biased and needs amendments
- - - - Mistake relates to a fact, negates the mens rea
        
        Example; where defendant harms another's property mistaking it to be his own (Seen in the Smith example)
        
        DPP v Morgan 1976; An honest mistaken of consensus in the case of rape can can lead to a not guilty verdict, but needs to be a reasonable one
      - Mistake to a defense element
        
        Self Defense, provided his mistake was an honest one. Judge on the facts
        
        Duress, an excusatory defense, mistake must be both honest and reasonable. It applies to cases where the defendant mistakenly believes its a self-defense of cohesion
        
        Graham (1982) defense of threat must be honest and reasonable
        
        Hassen (2005), threat must be honest and reasonable
      - Mistake relates to civil law, thus negates the mens rea of offense
        
        Smith (1974), defendant was renting a flat, owner allowed him to install roof panels and lay floorboards, but the defendant damaged some floors and roofs to access some electrical wiring he installed for his music system
        
        Defendant thought he was damaging his own property since he was the one who installed the floor and roof, the conviction was quashed stating he did not have the mens rea